06 - Laserfiche WebLink

the development of the Tennis Court have been in full accordance with the guidance provided by the Planning Department. Fourth, we have following specific comments on the Agenda Item 6 report: Page 9 - regarding Sports Court Development Standards, "The PMC does not address sports courts and associated fencing" The applicant chose to place a fence at 6.5 feet from the side yard fence, which is farther than the required 5 feet for an accessory structure or shed. The fence is a chain link, not opaque like a shed. Top of page 10 para 1: The tennis court is completed. The fence has not been installed. The existing pedestals for a fence are described in Table 2. If the Staff wants Table 4 to be a City code, it can be applied equally to all future sports courts. Page 12 The tennis court and proposed fence is already 10 feet behind an opaque six- foot wooden fence (nearly seven feet from street level) that has been on Dennis Drive for 25 years. "Intrusions such as noise, illumination, and limiting visual obstruction for vehicles on public streets" seems highly unlikely, and hardly seems to justify creating a new PMC standard. The no-illumination clause seems to come from nowhere. At this time there is no electricity or plan for illumination. If at some future time, lights are considered, they will be limited by the PMC. Anything else would require administrative review. Following, on page 13 (2nd par) of the Agenda Report, it specifically says: "Staff recommends none of the alternatives above be pursued. " Applicant proposes to modify the #3 alternative. Since this paperwork has been developed, and staff says that future reviews would necessitate a Development Standard be attached to the property, the Applicant would actually prefer that the Council simply approve the R-1-40,000 PUD Zoning to this parcel with no conditions. There is nothing special enough about the parcel on Martin that it needs to be encumbered with minutiae. If and whenever the City Council chooses to change the PMC regarding fences, lights, noise, and sports courts, those codes should apply to this parcel. A review of the sequence of events might help clarify our points and our further questions. We purchased the property on April 22, 2022. We did not know until just a few months ago (i.e. this year) that the original owners had filed a PUD (140) to split the property, into two residential properties nor its implications. We decided that a good use of the rear yard would be to install a tennis court. We were told that there are no Pleasanton codes on tennis courts in rear yards. We arranged for a contractor to install the Tennis Court. Page 2 of 18